Jeffro
Huh? Trust 'scholar' to entirely miss the point. 🤦♂️
---
Ha ha! Trust Jeffro to get tied up with date stamps. LOL
scholar JW
Simple Question Re 1914
by Slidin Fast 540 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Jeffro
Apparently he has still missed the point. 🙄🤦♂️
-
scholar
Jeffro
No nitpicker, I find it rather odd that you dismiss quite readily the nine-date stamps in Daniel as of no significance in establishing not just it's setting but its date of composition and the fact that it is a book of prophecy. Whereas when it comes to a matter of chronology and history in establishing the time and length of the siege of Jerusalem you appeal to Ezekiel who similar to Daniel was a prophet and his book as like Daniel is a prophecy.
Further, Ezekiel only has one regnal date stamp and eleven time stamps, two of which you quote in support of your argument namely Ezek. 24:1; 33:21 so your position is rather false and inconsistent. What then is your date of composition of Ezekiel ? Do you regard this book as prophetic?
scholar JW
-
scholar
Jeffro
Apparently he has still missed the point. 🙄🤦♂️
---
Apparently your point is rather pointless!
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
No nitpicker, I find it rather odd that you dismiss quite readily the nine-date stamps in Daniel as of no significance in establishing not just it's setting but its date of composition and the fact that it is a book of prophecy. Whereas when it comes to a matter of chronology and history in establishing the time and length of the siege of Jerusalem you appeal to Ezekiel who similar to Daniel was a prophet and his book as like Daniel is a prophecy.
It truly is laughable that you imagine that referring to the date of an event is a 'date stamp' that necessarily establishes the date of writing. Surely you can't really be that stupid. Although, given that your related 'explanation' is that the book must be magical, you probably are. Neither Ezekiel nor Daniel are magical books, but it is indeed true that statements in Ezekiel help confirm the length of the siege on Jerusalem prior to its destruction (though the verses in Ezekiel are not required to properly calculate the duration when the dating systems are correctly understood).
Further, Ezekiel only has one regnal date stamp and eleven time stamps, two of which you quote in support of your argument namely Ezek. 24:1; 33:21 so your position is rather false and inconsistent. What then is your date of composition of Ezekiel ? Do you regard this book as prophetic?
Oh, you're still prattling about 'date stamps'. I wasn't talking about the date of composition of Ezekiel at all. I simply noted that the JW dogma is also wrong about the length of the siege, as shown by Ezekiel (in addition to other relevant facts about the dating systems used). As it happens, Ezekiel was most likely completed some time between 571 BCE and 568 BCE inclusive (since the author amends the text to account for the failure to capture Tyre but not for the failure of the 'prophecy' about 40 years for Egypt), though revisions could have been made after that.
-
scholar
Jeffro
It truly is laughable that you imagine that referring to the date of an event is a 'date stamp' that necessarily establishes the date of writing. Surely you can't really be that stupid. Although, given that your related 'explanation' is that the book must be magical, you probably are. Neither Ezekiel nor Daniel are magical books, but it is indeed true that statements in Ezekiel help confirm the length of the siege on Jerusalem prior to its destruction (though the verses in Ezekiel are not required to properly calculate the duration when the dating systems are correctly understood).
-----
Nothing to laugh about as i did not write these two prophetic books. The simple fact is that both writings set in the sixth century BC contain numerous date stamps as in the case of Daniel and Exilic time stamps in Ezekiel which enables not only ancient readers but modern-day readers to know not only the time period of these writings but the date of their composition. Today, people are familiar with a digital camera that once purchased, the current date and time are set into the camera and the henceforth future date and time is logged thus such information can be suitable as evidence in a trial or hearing. Similarly, daily newspapers have the time of composition of that paper as part of the masthead. I am seeking from the Editor of the Jerusalem Post as to whether there are any newspapers or bulletins from Babylon in the NB Period written by any reporters concerning the visions of Ezekiel and Daniel and I will forward such documentation to you upon its receipt.
Your comment that Ezekiel helps confirm the length of Jerusalem's siege is interesting as it is based on exilic date stamps which you are happy to accept but you choose to ignore the relevance of the date stamps in Daniel. Please explain!
----
It truly is laughable that you imagine that referring to the date of an event is a 'date stamp' that necessarily establishes the date of writing. Surely you can't really be that stupid. Although, given that your related 'explanation' is that the book must be magical, you probably are. Neither Ezekiel nor Daniel are magical books, but it is indeed true that statements in Ezekiel help confirm the length of the siege on Jerusalem prior to its destruction (though the verses in Ezekiel are not required to properly calculate the duration when the dating systems are correctly understood).
---
Yes, you were not talking about the date of Ezekiel's composition but you are quite wrong in saying that the length of the siege is 30 months. The siege of Jerusalem of 18 months is properly described in 2 Ki. 25:1,2. The siege began on the 10th day of the 10th month of the 11th year of King Zedekiah which corresponds to 10th Tebeth (early January) 609 BCE until the 9th day of the 4th month of the 11th year of King Zedekiah which corresponds to the 9th Tammuz (end of July) 607 BCE which represents a duration of 18 months accepted by mainstream scholarship.
The length of the siege was witnessed and experienced by the prophet Jeremiah, the author of 2 Kings whereas the prophet Ezekiel only heard about it late thirdhand.
The beginning of the siege as stated in 2 Ki.25:1 is confirmed by Ezekiel in Ezek.24:1 and the end of the siege in 2 Ki. 25:2 is later confirmed by a later report received by Ezekiel in Ezek.33:21 wqhich gives support to the siege's duration of 18 months.
Regarding the foregoing it can be properly reckoned that Daniel was writen in Babylon c.536 BCE covering the period c.618 BCE - 536 BCE and Ezekiel again was written in Babylon in 591 BCE covering the period c. 613 BCE - 591 BCE.
scholar JW
-
scholar
Jeffro
And no, there is no reason to conclude that it took someone 18 months to reach Ezekiel with the news of Jerusalem's destruction, by which time he would already have heard from people who were exiled to Babylon in 587 BCE. And the Watch Tower Society agrees that Ezekiel found out about 6 (not 18) months after Jerusalem's destruction anyway (The Watchtower, 1 August 2007, page 8):
--
False nitpicker! The simple fact is some manuscripts read '11 th year' rather than the '12 th year'so we have a period of either six months or 18 months however if we count the 12 th year from the Jewish New Year, Tishri 1 607 BCE six months after the destruction of Jerusalem then the two date stamp's are synchronized. Refer to Ezekiel 20-48, Leslie C. Allen, WBC, Vol.29, 1990, Worde Books, p.152.
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
‘scholar’:
The siege of Jerusalem of 18 months is properly described in 2 Ki. 25:1,2. The siege began on the 10th day of the 10th month of the 11th year of King Zedekiah which corresponds to 10th Tebeth (early January) 609 BCE until the 9th day of the 4th month of the 11th year of King Zedekiah which corresponds to the 9th Tammuz (end of July) 607 BCE which represents a duration of 18 months accepted by mainstream scholarship.
😂 wow! So… January 609 until mid 607 is… 18 months! 😂 might want to check your math there, ‘scholar’. Maybe 608 is being shunned. 😛
cognitive dissonance at its absolute worst.
-
Jeffro
‘scholar’:
The simple fact is some manuscripts read '11 th year' rather than the '12 th year'
That took you a while. 😆 A few later copies have this difference (likely a result of trying to make the text fit without recognising the use of Tishri dating for Judah), most notably in translations such as the Syriac Peshitta (4th century CE). It isn’t representative of the original text or the majority of manuscripts.
-
scholar
Jeffro
😂 wow! So… January 609 until mid 607 is… 18 months! 😂 might want to check your math there, ‘scholar’. Maybe 608 is being shunned. 😛
---
Corrected to January 608 BCE. Calendrical issues can be very tricky for all scholars and I thank you for pointing out my error. If 609 BCE is used then it would be Dec 26. of that year or early January of the following year
I have now fine-tuned my cognitive dissonance.
scholar JW